GR L 60066; (July, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-60066 July 31, 1986
FELISA RIVERA and GODOFREDO RIVERA, petitioners, vs. HON. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXVI, and PACIFICO AQUINO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners-spouses Felisa and Godofredo Rivera owned an apartment building on Quirino Avenue, Manila. Private respondent Pacifico Aquino began occupying unit No. 2034 in 1965 under a verbal lease agreement with a monthly rent of P120.00. The agreement did not stipulate a definite period. In 1979, petitioners moved into another unit (No. 2036) in the same building after ejecting its tenant. However, they later sold that unit to pay a bank loan and prevent foreclosure of the entire property, forcing them to rent an apartment elsewhere.
On January 24, 1980, petitioners notified Aquino of their need to repossess his unit for their own use as a residence, giving him ninety days to vacate. Upon his refusal, they filed an ejectment case. The City Court ruled in their favor, but the Court of First Instance reversed the decision, holding that the lease period had not expired, thus barring ejectment under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The sole legal issue is whether the period of the verbal lease agreement had expired, thereby allowing ejectment under Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, which permits an owner to repossess a property for personal use provided the lease period has expired.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting the ejectment. The legal logic hinges on the interpretation of an indefinite lease period under the applicable law. Citing the precedent in Baens vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a verbal lease agreement without a fixed term is considered to have expired from month to month. Therefore, the requirement in BP 25 that “the period of lease has expired” is satisfied for month-to-month leases.
The Court emphasized that a contrary interpretation would lead to an absurd and unjust result, effectively making a tenant with an indefinite lease immune from ejectment by an owner in dire need of the premises, even after proper notice. This would contravene the law’s intent. The Court noted the respondent’s obstinate resistance and his subsequent migration to the United States, which rendered his continued occupancy unreasonable. Consequently, the petitioners, having complied with the three-month notice requirement and demonstrating genuine need, were entitled to repossess the property. The decision was declared final and immediately executory to end the protracted litigation.